↓ Skip to main content

Analyzing myocardial torsion based on tissue phase mapping cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analyzing myocardial torsion based on tissue phase mapping cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0234-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teodora Chitiboi, Susanne Schnell, Jeremy Collins, James Carr, Varun Chowdhary, Amir Reza Honarmand, Anja Hennemuth, Lars Linsen, Horst K. Hahn, Michael Markl

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to analyze differences in left ventricular torsion between volunteers and patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy based on tissue phase mapping (TPM) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). TPM was performed on 27 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and 14 normal volunteers. Patients underwent a standard CMR including late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) for the assessment of myocardial scar and ECG-gated cine CMR for global cardiac function. TPM was acquired in short-axis orientation at base, mid, and apex for all subjects. After evaluation by experienced observers, the patients were divided in subgroups according to the presence or absence of LGE (LGE+/LGE-), local wall motion abnormalities (WM+/WM-), and having a preserved (≥50 %) or reduced (<50 %) ejection fraction (EF+/EF-). TPM data was semi-automatically segmented and global LV torsion was computed for each cardiac time frame for endocardial and epicardial layers, and for the entire myocardium. Maximum myocardial torsion was significantly lower for patients with reduced EF compared to controls (0.21 ± 0.15°/mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.11°/mm, p = 0.018), but also for patients with wall motion abnormalities (0.21 ± 0.13°/mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.11°/mm, p = 0.004). Global myocardial torsion showed a positive correlation (r = 0.54, p < 0.001) with EF. Moreover, endocardial torsion was significantly higher than epicardial torsion for EF+ subjects (0.56 ± 0.33°/mm vs. 0.34 ± 0.18°/mm, p = 0.039) and for volunteers (0.46 ± 0.16°/mm vs. 0.30 ± 0.09°/mm, p = 0.004). The difference in maximum torsion between endo- and epicardial layers was positively correlated with EF (r = 0.47, p = 0.002) and age (r = 0.37, p = 0.016) for all subjects. TPM can be used to detect significant differences in LV torsion in patients with reduced EF and in the presence of local wall motion abnormalities. We were able to quantify torsion differences between the endocardium and epicardium, which vary between patient subgroups and are correlated to age and EF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Computer Science 6 21%
Engineering 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,206,296
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#248
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,678
of 316,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.